Poll: Bush 47% Kerry 45%

Rasmussen ^ | 2.13.04

[ambrose]

RasmussenReports.com February 13, 2004--President George W. Bush continues to hold a very narrow lead over Massachusetts Senator John F. Kerry in the latest Rasmussen Reports Presidential Election Survey. Bush is the pick for 47% of likely voters while Kerry is the choice of 45%.

Over the previous six days, the candidates have been one-point apart or tied. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

The Rasmussen Reports Presidential Election Survey is updated daily by noon Eastern.

The electorate that Bush and Kerry are trying to reach has a generally positive view of American society. Sixty percent (60%) of likely voters say that our nation is generally fair and decent.

[Monty22]

"I find it almost impossible to believe that after 9-11 a democrat could get more than 10%....I just don't understand."

Americans have at best a 2 year memory, no matter how bad something is. A nuke goes off someplace, might be 4 years.

9/11 though, most now don't see to care.

[djpg]

I wish that I had more confidence in Rasmussen. That poll had Bush winning the Presidency comfortably in 2000.

[RogerWilko]

I find it almost impossible to believe that after 9-11 a democrat could get more than 10%....I just don't understand

Go to DU and you will understand...

You'll understand that there' s a lot people that have their heads on so backwards, that all they ever see is their A** when they look down!

[Intolerant in NJ]

...ah yes, Rasmussen - the guy who told us Bush was going to beat Gore by five percentage points the weekend before the election.....

[KQQL]

I hope he doesn't sink us this time

[KQQL]

Election 2004



Kerry 50% Edwards 19% Kerry lead grows after Clark drops out.

Bush 47% Kerry 45%

Congress: Dem 42% GOP 40%

Bush Job Approval: 54%

National Political Tracking Data Updated Daily by Noon Eastern

http://rasmussenreports.com/

[KQQL]

Bush numbers take an uptick (Approval @ 52%) W49%-Kerry 48% -Latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1074746/posts

[Common Tator]

Pollsters were under a handicap in 2000. The 1992 and 1996 elections had the Ross Perot votes. Pollsters can tell you how the Democrats, Repubicans, and independents will vote. What they have trouble telling us is how many of each are going to vote. They guessed the Demcratic turn out too low in 2000. Many in 2000 were using the last two man race of 1988... It was 15 million votes too low. They will guess democratic turn out too high in 2004.

Remember that when the Democratic base (mostly working class people) are happy they tend not to vote. The fact that the unions could not get out the vote for Gephardt in Iowa speaks volumes. Remember all the talk of Unions getting out the vote in Iowa? They failed to get out the vote. The Demcorats were not motivated to vote.

When the economy is good fewer Democrats turn out to vote.

In every state except New Hampshire the Democratic primary turn out has been quite low. If the Democratic general Election turn out is much the same, Kerry will be toast.

The media is making much about how mad the Demoratic primary voters are at Bush. But only a bit over a third of the Democrats are voting in most states. The remainder are not motivated enough to vote. That is not good for Democrats. That says a majority of Democrats are not motivated against bush enough to come out and vote.

I would bet Rasmussen and others are using the 2000 turn out numbers to gauge 2004. The Democrat turn out will be a lot lower.

For example in 1992 over 105 million people voted. In 1996 only 95 million people voted. The Democratic turn out is going to be down this year.. just as the Republican turn out in 1996 was down.

No matter how much you hate to hear it, moderate Republicans were not all that unhappy with Clinton in 1996. In 2004 moderate Democrats are not all that unhappy with Bush.

The unhappy Democrats are voting in the primaries and the media is reporting them as typical of all Democrats. But a huge number of Democrats are not voting in the primaries. The mad ones are mostly the ones that are voting. They are not typical.

[ChewedGum]

I agree. I was a poll-watcher and it made me a bit bitter back in '99 during the returns. I'm definitely not watching them this early.

Gum

[NeoCaveman]

No matter how much you hate to hear it, moderate Republicans were not all that unhappy with Clinton in 1996.

I love to hear that, it confirms what I think of moderate Republicans.....

[NeonKnight]

Remember that when the Democratic base (mostly working class people) are happy they tend not to vote.

Um...last time I looked, the working class was about 94.6% of the population.

[lasereye]

On court appointees which live on long after a President is gone and abortion there's a big difference, to name just a couple of things. And why does foreign policy/defense not matter all of a sudden?

[lasereye]

They had record turnout in NH.

[Common Tator]

I love to hear that, it confirms what I think of moderate Republicans.

But without them, what you will get is a Senate, House, White House and Courts full of people that would make you long for Bill Clinton to be your president.

[jwalsh07]

Our states have gained 7 electoral votes since the last election due to population shifts. Therefore the dims have to make up 14 electoral votes somehwere.

[Patrick1]

Is there such a thing as a reliable poll anymore? The ones I have seen have missed the vote in primary by a mile. Rasmussen is a joke because he uses automated phone machines. Gallup polls on weekends and ABC under counts the GOP. Fox seems the most accurate and Zogby has become a joke.

[Common Tator]

They had record turnout in NH.

Try reading the first sentence of my post. I excepted New Hampshire.

What was amazing to me was not that 280 thousand Democrats voted in New Hampshire, what was amazing was that that 200 thousand Republicans voted in an unconstested primary in New Hampshire.

The spending in New Hampshire this year was hundreds of dollars per vote.. it is not typical of the actual interest in the election.

[GiveEmDubya]

And I'd bet that a good chunk of the 280K Dem primary voters were independents crossing over.

[NeoCaveman]

But without them, what you will get is a Senate, House, White House and Courts full of people that would make you long for Bill Clinton to be your president.

I know, I know. Doesn't mean I have to like them, though.